Wilkins - What really went on...

[jmsc]

Not true, Knight may be the chairman but he is a minority shareholder,
the decision was made by the BOARD in January because opinions
between Wilkins and the board were incompatable.

I will make no comment as to who is right or wrong but I really think
that a manager should listen to the boards opinion, if you don't agree,
then resign, not hang around and get sacked - that's a wimp!

Knight really did want to keep him as a coach because he knew where
Wilkins thrived. Wilkins lost the teams support - he had to go.

The truth? Or certain poster's VERSION of the truth.

It seems to me everyone on this thread is speculating on the basis of a few chats with players and coverage in the press - myself included.

I don't see anything wrong with healthy discussion but to suggest anyone's version of events is somehow true is misguided.

I think the only truth is we will never really know what went on. Everyone will have their suspicions based largely on whether you are pro Wilkins or pro Knight, or a bit of both.

I would suggest only Knight and Wilkins know what really went on and neither is likely to let it be known as I would expect both were at fault in different ways.

 

[Deportivo Seagull]

Not true, Knight may be the chairman but he is a minority shareholder, the decision was made by the BOARD ...
.

Is the right answer, Knight is a MINORITY shareholder and as such answers to the board, not the other way round. He is not nearly as powerful as people seem to think, if he was a MAJORITY shareholder things would be different but he's not. Knight is in essence the spokesman for the board, he doesn't/can't do anything not sanctioned by the board .... simple really. So a decision to replace the manager can only be done with the approval of the board, Knight couldn't do it on his own.

The deafening silence that has been the support of DW by the players would indicate that he wasn't as popular as we thought.

 

[Papa Lazarou]

Going back to the orignal post, I personally (in that it is my opinion) agree totally with the version of events put forward. Dean showed (sadly) that he was naive in terms of the wider job of football management. He crossed the line from club employee to players' friend (as he had been with the youth) and it ruined his relationship with the board. All IMHO.

Papa

 

[227 BHA]

I also feel that the club are moving more backwards than forwards - look at the facts - we have not spent any money they are either loans or frees - and how many faces from the past

How many faces from the past?

Apart from the management team (who I presume you aren't referring to) I make it that we have re-signed Adam Virgo and err....that's it! Unless you are including Matt Richards who I'd have regarded as a current player not a past player?

 

[Simster]

The deafening silence that has been the support of DW by the players would indicate that he wasn't as popular as we thought.

I suspect you might be right there, although it isn't the manager's job to be friends of the players even if ideally you'd like to see some mutual respect there.

Read what Lord Bracknell says: "When the manager doesn't do what the chairman wants, the manager goes."

Clearly, there is more to football management than picking the team. The inference is that he wasn't doing the peripheral duties expected of him. I can well believe that, although it doesn't necessarily mean sacking him was a fair decision.

 

[clippedgull]

The deafening silence that has been the support of DW by the players would indicate that he wasn't as popular as we thought.

That doesn't indicate anything at all. Players can hardly speak out and be supportive/critical of the guy if they are still in the employ of the club.

 

[Brovion]

I tell you what, if Brian Clough was just starting out in football management today he wouldn't last five minutes. Certainly not at Brighton where the club hierarchy care more about the manager jumping through all the right hoops as opposed to results.

 

[Easy 10]

I'd never have Mickey Adams down as a hoop-jumper, to be fair.
My reading of it was that the board knew there would be a major overhaul on the playing side of things this summer, and they trusted Adams to restructure the playing side more than they trusted Wilkins.

 

[Papa Lazarou]

I tell you what, if Brian Clough was just starting out in football management today he wouldn't last five minutes. Certainly not at Brighton where the club hierarchy care more about the manager jumping through all the right hoops as opposed to results.

Without disrespecting you, that's an odd view to take.

Mickey Adams and Brian Clough are in some respects similar style managers, both with strong views, happy to speak out when needed, both capable of standing up to the chairman / board, very capable of dealing with players and disciplining them when necessary.

So, IN MY IPINION, Clough would work well at the Albion... as long as he didn't take bungs on transfer dealings.

 

[Easy 10]

and stayed off the sauce.

 

[Simster]

I tell you what, if Brian Clough was just starting out in football management today he wouldn't last five minutes. Certainly not at Brighton where the club hierarchy care more about the manager jumping through all the right hoops as opposed to results.

The problem is that we'll never know what the long term affect of keeping DW would have been. If he had been getting results but gradually eroding the wage structure at the club by failing to deal with player demands fairly then we'd have been in a right mess a couple of years down the line. I can only hope his sacking was for this sort of mismanagement as opposed to some trivial personality clash, but I guess we'll never know.

 

[Papa Lazarou]

and stayed off the sauce.

And didn't go around thumping fans...

 

[Brovion]

Without disrespecting you, that's an odd view to take.

Mickey Adams and Brian Clough are in some respects similar style managers, both with strong views, happy to speak out when needed, both capable of standing up to the chairman / board, very capable of dealing with players and disciplining them when necessary.

So, IN MY IPINION, Clough would work well at the Albion... as long as he didn't take bungs on transfer dealings.

You don't have to worry about being respectful (although I thank you for the courtesy) and your opinion is of course just as valid as mine - especially when discussing a hypothetical situation.

What I meant was that Clough had a style of managment that used to piss off his bosses, it was the reason he left Derby in the first place. And when he was here he used to annoy people by often wearing clothing (jackets, blazers) with a Derby insignia as opposed to a Brighton one. He also buggered off without a word to America to watch an Ali v Frazier fight when he should have been taking training.

Wilkins also appeared to have his own 'unique' style of management which didn't go down well with the club hierarchy, that's why I made the comparison. However he was different to Clough in one respect - our results under Clough were appalling.

 

[Brovion]

The problem is that we'll never know what the long term affect of keeping DW would have been. If he had been getting results but gradually eroding the wage structure at the club by failing to deal with player demands fairly then we'd have been in a right mess a couple of years down the line. I can only hope his sacking was for this sort of mismanagement as opposed to some trivial personality clash, but I guess we'll never know.

I do think it was more down to failure by the Board to 'manage' Wilkins properly, but that's just my opinion (they appeard to just chuck him in the deep end and told him to get on with it). As you say we'll never know and I'm happy to move on - it's just that people still keep on about it and I find I'm still slightly annoyed about the whole episode.

 

[Papa Lazarou]

You don't have to worry about being respectful (although I thank you for the courtesy) and your opinion is of course just as valid as mine - especially when discussing a hypothetical situation.

What I meant was that Clough had a style of managment that used to piss off his bosses, it was the reason he left Derby in the first place. And when he was here he used to annoy people by often wearing clothing (jackets, blazers) with a Derby insignia as opposed to a Brighton one. He also buggered off without a word to America to watch an Ali v Frazier fight when he should have been taking training.

Wilkins also appeared to have his own 'unique' style of management which didn't go down well with the club hierarchy, that's why I made the comparison. However he was different to Clough in one respect - our results under Clough were appalling.

Interesting take. Indeed Wilkins had a unique style of management, as did Clough. My take would be that Clough had a unique personality, whereas Wilkins was simply out of his depth as a Manager, but a very good coach; part of which is down to his personality.

 

[Napper]

Interesting stuff and certainly makes sense.

I previously thought Wilkins was way to weak at crucial times in the season and DK knows that to get promoted we need something more than that but this thread certainly would hit the nail on the head more

Either way , I'm bloody glad it's happened

 

[bobbyzam]

It makes sense.

However there is one huge hole in the argument. If they had been planning to give him the bullet since January why did they let him decide the future of the out of contract players and offer others like Adam El-Bad a contract. Before sacking him?

 

[Kylies Stunt Arse]

It makes sense.

However there is one huge hole in the argument. If they had been planning to give him the bullet since January why did they let him decide the future of the out of contract players and offer others like Adam El-Bad a contract. Before sacking him?

Why not? I mean of the players that were out of contract it is never just a case of making a decision to keep or get rid. If you want to keep you have to offer terms and hope they are accepted. I'm pretty certain that all his decisions would have had to be put to the board first, and then dealt with accordingly. There is also the possibility that the players Wilkins indicated he wanted to retain were discussed with Adams prior to contracts being offered. Adams would be familiar with most of them and in a reasonable position to judge. The players released would then have the opportunity to get themselves sorted out, or to do what Mayo and Hart have done and try to impress Adams and get another deal.

 

[BigGully]

Why not? I mean of the players that were out of contract it is never just a case of making a decision to keep or get rid. If you want to keep you have to offer terms and hope they are accepted. I'm pretty certain that all his decisions would have had to be put to the board first, and then dealt with accordingly. There is also the possibility that the players Wilkins indicated he wanted to retain were discussed with Adams prior to contracts being offered. Adams would be familiar with most of them and in a reasonable position to judge. The players released would then have the opportunity to get themselves sorted out, or to do what Mayo and Hart have done and try to impress Adams and get another deal.

No it is not reasonable for the club to allow an unknowing Wilkins to have to make the decision on whom to release and retain ahead of an imminent sacking.

Definately not.

You do wonder if there was ungoing bargaining within the board to either release or retain Wilkins himself.

 

[severnside gull]

must admit this is the only bit that has me puzzled, given that man management/motivation appears not to have been a particular strength and siding with players against the wishes of the board MAY have been significant factors in deciding to let Wilkins go; and given that a decision in principal may have been made fairly early on.

I can see to some extent, "saving" the new incumbent from getting rid of players might have been a reason; I can also imagine that some players (Hart/Mayo but clearly NOT Reid or Butters) may have been "tipped the wink" to hang around for a trial under Adams but it's a wee bit Machievellian................or then again maybe not